I have waited a while before wading into the debate started by this post as Sarah Lacy’s insufferably smug take on the “can you train journalists?” debate attracted reams of responses when it was posted last week.
My Cardiff colleague Hannah Waldram added her voice to the argument via a guest post on Telegraph Communities editor Shane Richmond’s blog and did a good job articulating the journalism student’s defence.
One of Hannah’s gripes concerns Lacy’s patronising style and, as I said before, utter smugness.
But though I agree with the thrust of Hannah’s argument, I do think Lacy’s (ahem) divisive writing style has deflected attention away from some of the points she makes which might just on closer inspection merit further inspection.
When an article carries such a needlessly aggressive headline, it is not surprising some of the subtleties of her argument might be lost in translation, as the frothing-mouthed Lacy turns her points of view into polarising invective.
This paragraph is a perfect example of this:
Journalism schools are like foot-binding. They force you into a style that a bunch of dinosaurs all agreed was acceptable a zillion years ago. So in an age of blogging, you have no voice. In fact, if I were in J-school now, I’d have my knuckles rapped for using the rhetorical “you” in those last two sentences.
The foot-binding simile, “dinosaurs”, “zillions”, it all smacks of trying far too hard. Hey this girl’s crazy! Two fingers to the squares who make up the Establishment and no mistake! She doesn’t care who she upsets.
But hidden within is the kernel of an interesting point. As Hannah points out we are very lucky that Cardiff has embraced the digital future and our multimedia training is first rate.
But in terms of language and style there are rules imposed on us by tutors which I would question. Writing with flair is rarely encouraged in a training environment which is a shame.
On another level BBC Trustee and Director of Cardiff school for journalism Richard Tait gave an excellent lecture last year in which he deplored the slide (as he saw it) from newspapers to viewspapers. Personally I am not convinced this is such a bad thing.
With short, factual news updates available everywhere, from trains to coffee shop screens, it may be that newspapers should now be brave enough to increase their opinion pages.
Say what you like about Sarah Lacy (and goodness knows people have) but her piece has stimulated a fascinating debate across the blogosphere. Writers with such an ability can only be a good thing for our industry.
2 responses so far ↓
On the Money // April 14, 2009 at 9:50 pm |
Journalism training is essential, especially if it is critical of corporate writing and “churnalism”. It’s particularly “funny” that so many bloggers advocating “citizen journalism” actually amplify stories they read, heard or saw in mainstream media. If journalism is brought to it’s knees due to the current recession or a misplaced belief in bloggers … the world will become even darker.
Thanks for your post.
Hannah Waldram // April 17, 2009 at 9:26 am |
In the section quoted above Lacy makes the mistake of confusing blog writing with news writing. The style for blogging is much more chatty, and can warrant the use of “you” which our tutors might challenge in a piece of news.
You are right about writing requiring a certain flair and bending of the rules – but what is restrictive for bloggers is a must for news reporters. So Lacy’s argument isn’t really very strong in this case either.
Interestingly, in the Telegraph style guide it says: “Make special note of the importance of the wrd “that,” which the tabloids have all but removed from the English language in its role as a conjunction…Taking out “that” makes the reader stumble over the sense. But it is not needed after the verb “said.”
So perhaps they are a bit too strict with the No Thats rule.